Comparison Overview

Ericsson

VS

Cox Communications

Ericsson

Torshamnsgatan 21, Kista, Stockholm, SE
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.ericsson.com

The future of mobile isn’t on the horizon, it’s happening now. At Ericsson, we’re building the foundation for an open network ecosystem where industries, developers, and enterprises thrive. The convergence of 5G, AI, cloud, and network APIs isn’t just a technological shift; it’s a transformation that is redefining industries and enhancing everyday life. Open, programmable networks are enabling real-time innovation and unlocking new business models across the globe. Imagine a world where developers can dynamically access network capabilities on demand, where enterprises don’t just use connectivity but shape it. This isn’t a distant vision, it’s the ecosystem we’re creating today. Collaboration fuels everything we do. By working across industries, we’re designing a future where connectivity isn’t just seamless. It’s intelligent, programmable, and transformative. The shift is happening. Are you part of it?

NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 97,356
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
View Profile

Cox Communications

6205 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, None, Atlanta, GA, US, 30328
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cox.com

Cox Communications is committed to creating more moments of real human connection. We bring people closer to family and friends through technology that’s inspired by a culture that puts people first, and we’re always working to improve life in the communities we serve. Our world-class broadband applications and services are helping create smart homes and smart cities that will bring more comfort, convenience, security, entertainment and connectivity to the lives of the people we serve. Our company is full of dreamers and doers; people who make plans and who make things happen. And, of course, people who have fun doing it. In short, people like you. Join the Cox team and make your mark!

NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 16,385
Subsidiaries: 23
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
4

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ericsson.jpeg
Ericsson
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cox-communications.jpeg
Cox Communications
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Ericsson
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cox Communications
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ericsson in 2025.

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cox Communications in 2025.

Incident History — Ericsson (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ericsson cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Cox Communications (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cox Communications cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ericsson.jpeg
Ericsson
Incidents

Date Detected: 03/2022
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cox-communications.jpeg
Cox Communications
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Zero-Day Exploit (CVE-2025-61882), Unauthenticated Access, Multi-Stage Java Implants, Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Theft, Extortion
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2024
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Internal (Insider)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Automated Collection Methods
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Ericsson company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Cox Communications company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Cox Communications company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Ericsson company.

In the current year, Cox Communications company has reported more cyber incidents than Ericsson company.

Cox Communications company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Ericsson company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Cox Communications company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Ericsson company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Cox Communications company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Ericsson company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Ericsson company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Cox Communications company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Ericsson nor Cox Communications holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Cox Communications company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Ericsson company.

Ericsson company employs more people globally than Cox Communications company, reflecting its scale as a Telecommunications.

Neither Ericsson nor Cox Communications holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Ericsson nor Cox Communications holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Ericsson nor Cox Communications holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Ericsson nor Cox Communications holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Ericsson nor Cox Communications holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Ericsson nor Cox Communications holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References